Judge Roberts backlash

Ok, so I was re-reading this and I found the strawman that was bothering me...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fortunately, we no longer require militias

The Constitution says otherwise. It says we have to have militias, and it says that militiamen have the right to keep individual-style military weapons in their homes.

It says we are required to do so? I don't think so. In fact, I just looked at the Constitution, and in no area does it say that the US or individual states are required to field a militia.

Cycloptichorn

Oralloy did not say it was "required". He said "we have to have". Cycloptichorn then went on and on about how the Constitution does not say "require" when Orallay did not either. Cyc is arguing a point he made up and that was bothering me and I could not figure out why. Glad I found it.

If you are going to mince words, mince the correct ones and leave the strawman alone.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

So, if I have to have a picture ID to vote that means I am not required to have one?

I think I am starting to see the problem with conservative thought.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The words 'necessary' and the words 'required' are not synonyms - even if you believe it's convenient for your argument for them to be.

Cycloptichorn

Didn't say they were synonyms.

But, if I should say that oxygen is necessary for humans to live, would you then say that oxygen is not required for humans to live?

Bad analogy, because - as it turns out - a militia is not required or necessary for the US to maintain its' defense.

You are correct that this is a lot of arguing back and forth over definitions, but it's immaterial anyway - as Set pointed out earlier, the National Guard was defined as our militia 200 years ago, and Oralloy is perfectly wrong in his determination that he or some group of citizens would qualify, and therefore have the right to own weaponry which is purely offensive in nature.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually, Set said

Quote:

The Dick Act (The Militia Act of 1903) defines the National Guard as the organized miliita, and everyone with the right to bear arms who is not a member of the armed forces or the National Guard as the unorganized militia.

The act itself says "The act, also known as the Dick Act in honor of Dick, repealed the Militia Act of 1792 and divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state units receiving federal support."

So, the Reserve Militia, defined as all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 (Notice that's the same as the draft age). Can they be allowed to have weapons but no one else?

Also, 1903 was not 200 years ago, just a mere 109 years... Wink

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

It makes you a flippin' loony, is what it makes you.
The FBI will be blasting loud music outside your compound any day, now.

You get rather childish after you've made a fool out of yourself. Next time stick to arguing the facts. If you succeed at that, you'll do better.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Stop feeding the troll.

I don't think cicerone imposter is a troll. I think he's just plain stupid.

But I suppose my responses to his idiotic babbling are cluttering up the thread a bit. I'll try to cut back.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bad analogy, because - as it turns out - a militia is not required or necessary for the US to maintain its' defense.

Wrong. The Constitution requires it.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are correct that this is a lot of arguing back and forth over definitions, but it's immaterial anyway - as Set pointed out earlier, the National Guard was defined as our militia

That reminds me, I was going to go back and answer that post when I had more time.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

the National Guard was defined as our militia 200 years ago

Nope. The National Guard did not even exist 200 years ago.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

and Oralloy is perfectly wrong in his determination that he or some group of citizens would qualify, and therefore have the right to own weaponry which is purely offensive in nature.

I have not addressed the question of qualifications. I cannot be perfectly wrong in something that I have never done to begin with.

I might well qualify for the militia though, since you brought it up.

And if we had a militia, it would be a given that some group of Americans would qualify.

So I would not have been wrong even if I had said what you claimed I said.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You wrote,

Quote:

Nope. The National Guard did not even exist 200 years ago.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.ng.mil/default.aspx

375 years.

0 Replies

@revelette,

I hope you enjoy the newspapers and pamphlets available at the time. Television, radio, phones of all kinds, computers and internet, etc. aren't covered, at least by your logic.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The Dick Act (The Militia Act of 1903) defines the National Guard as the organized miliita,

A law can create whatever internal definition it wants, but it can't change what the Constitution says.

The militia referred to in the Constitution is a separate body from the US Army.

Also, the militia referred to in the Constitution can only be used to do three things when they are called into service by the Federal government: repel invasions, enforce the law, and suppress rebellions.

Also, the militia referred to in the Constitution has its officers appointed by the state governments, and the state governments are in charge of training it.

And most importantly of all, members of the militia referred to in the Constitution are allowed to buy their own military weapons and to keep them at home.

The National Guard is quite at odds with all of these characteristics (though I don't believe that the differences are all due to the Dick Act -- some of them were brought about by subsequent legislation).

Setanta wrote:

and everyone with the right to bear arms who is not a member of the armed forces or the National Guard as the unorganized militia.

They do not use the right to keep and bear arms as any basis for determining who they classify as the unorganized militia.

The (non-militia) right to bear arms for self defense applies to people who do not even qualify for the unorganized militia -- the elderly for instance.

You forgot to mention the State Guards, which are the one part of the legislation that might count as the militia of the Constitution (but only if they existed as a heavily-armed force, and if its members could take their weapons home with them).

1 Reply

The National Guard is not at odds with the constitution. The officers are still appointed by the states, and the troops are still trained according to the program prescribed by Congress. You're playing silly word games because you cannot give up your polemical position. Nothing about the Dick Act or the National Guard violates the constitution. However, if you believe so, i suggest that you bring suit and pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. You know, put your money where your big mouth, your make-it-up-as-you-go-along mouth is?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I've learned not to argue with crazy. Enjoy your crazy; I'll just watch from the sidelines and have some popcorn.

1 Reply

@roger,

Boy is this out in the left field somewhere.I don't remember hearing anything in the early constitution days about telling citizens to buy newspaper and pamphlets for a specific purpose.

The Militia and the Right to Arms, Or, How the Second Amendment Fell Silent

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The National Guard is not at odds with the constitution.

True. They just are not the militia that the Constitution talks about. That militia is the State Guards.

What is at odds with the Constitution is the fact that many states do not have a State Guard. And the fact that even those states that do have them, make them an unarmed body (essentially just a bunch of civilian volunteers).

Setanta wrote:

The officers are still appointed by the states,

Are they? I didn't know that. Are you sure?

Setanta wrote:

You're playing silly word games because you cannot give up your polemical position.

Pointing out what the Constitution actually says is hardly a word game.

Setanta wrote:

Nothing about the Dick Act or the National Guard violates the constitution.

True. But the National Guard is not in any way the militia referred to in the Constitution.

The militia referred to in the Constitution is the State Guards (also established by either the Dick Act, or by one of its subsequent amendments, not sure which).

Setanta wrote:

However, if you believe so, i suggest that you bring suit and pursue it all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

That is not my belief. But I'll bring suit regarding the government's failure to have an armed militia, as the Constitution requires that they have, if you agree to pay all the associated legal bills.

Setanta wrote:

You know, put your money where your big mouth, your make-it-up-as-you-go-along mouth is?

Nonsense. You cannot show a single thing that I've ever fabricated.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

I've learned not to argue with crazy. Enjoy your crazy; I'll just watch from the sidelines and have some popcorn.

You think that defending civil rights is crazy because you hate our freedom.

Deep down, you are little different from the 9/11 attackers. They hated our freedom too.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Americans have no idea what freedom is. We in N. America have so many laws, bylaws, rules, regulations... What we have is good infrastructure, not freedom.

1 Reply

@revelette,

revelette wrote:

Boy is this out in the left field somewhere.

Not at all. If you want to use a bogus argument (like pretending that a Constitutional right only applies to archaic technology), that same bogus argument can also be used against any other part of the Constitution.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Like I said, enjoy your crazy. You've earned it.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Americans have no idea what freedom is. We in N. America have so many laws, bylaws, rules, regulations... What we have is good infrastructure, not freedom.

Free people have the right to carry guns for self defense.

Americans are the only people with that right.

Therefore, Americans are the only free people.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Like I said, enjoy your crazy. You've earned it.

You only find civil rights "crazy" because you hate our freedom, just like your buddy Osama bin Laden does.

1 Reply

Judge Roberts backlash

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know